RE: The Toyota GT86 is more relevant than ever: TMIW

[300bhp/ton]

Blayney said:

In a round-a-bout way that is what I'm asking. What number would everyone define as a success? What is a sales success for the GT86? Is it Toyota meeting it's internal sales targets (that I doubt we'll be able to find out)? Is it selling as many as the MX-5 (never going to happen)? Is it selling more than the 350z (in which case it would be a success)? Is it selling more than an average hot hatch, say a Golf GTi (which is out-sold by the R... which is outsold by the GTD...)?

According to carsalesbase.com Mazda sold 13,600 MX-5's in the EU last year. I don't know, but suspect half or more were the UK.

Toyota sold 1505 GT86's in Europe for 2016.... Of which based on How Many Left, we think 2/3rds of them were to the UK.

I'd have thought by any measure, selling only 10% the number of MX-5's is pretty low. I don't see why they couldn't sell 2000-4000 a year if they really wanted too. But they'd have to price it right and do the leg work.

[RBH58]

Alex said:

This is the key to understanding the GT86.

Don't disagree, but driven against the MX5 it's the MX5 that feels the most alert, nervous and playful, and the 86/BRZ that feels like the more serious "grown up" car. Without a doubt the 86/BRZ is ultimately the most capable car. Put them on the same rubber rather then the deliberately inferior OEM rubber the 86/BRZ gets compared with and see how they go back-to-back (I think the 86/BRZ would add a decent margin). But the MX5 is more fun 95% of the time.

Edited by RBH58 on Thursday 1st June 11:46

Edited by RBH58 on Thursday 1st June 12:13

[Olivera]

Blayney said:

[i]"The RF is 39bhp down on the GT86, at 158bhp plays 187, and it has slightly less torque too, producing 147lb ft to the Toyota's 151lb ft. But three things count in the Mazda's favour.

How can the MX5 only be 39 bhp down when the book figures state it's 50 bhp down? Are we saying the MX5 engine is actually making 3 bhp more than it should and the GT86 engine 18 bhp less than it should?

The GT86 has possibly the worst available production engine for repeatedly failing to make it's advertised power figures - not only are it's book figures meagre, but it actually fails to hit those by a significant margin!

Also the UK GT86 doesn't have the extra power nor shorter diff present in this US version, so it's very likely that the MX5 would have been faster than a UK GT86.

[RBH58]

Olivera said:

Also the UK GT86 doesn't have the extra power nor shorter diff present in this US version, so it's very likely that the MX5 would have been faster than a UK GT86.

The Aus version does for 2017...on the manual version only. The auto remains the same power and final drive.

[Blayney]

Olivera said:

Blayney said:

[i]"The RF is 39bhp down on the GT86, at 158bhp plays 187, and it has slightly less torque too, producing 147lb ft to the Toyota's 151lb ft. But three things count in the Mazda's favour.

How can the MX5 only be 39 bhp down when the book figures state it's 50 bhp down? Are we saying the MX5 engine is actually making 3 bhp more than it should and the GT86 engine 18 bhp less than it should?

The GT86 has possibly the worst available production engine for repeatedly failing to make it's advertised power figures - not only are it's book figures meagre, but it actually fails to hit those by a significant margin!

Also the UK GT86 doesn't have the extra power nor shorter diff present in this US version, so it's very likely that the MX5 would have been faster than a UK GT86.

Typo in my post, that I've now corrected, GT86 was quoted as 197bhp. This is from EVO magazine. The American YouTube video had the MX5 at 155bhp and the GT86 at 205bhp.

[300bhp/ton]

Olivera said:

The GT86 has possibly the worst available production engine for repeatedly failing to make it's advertised power figures - not only are it's book figures meagre, but it actually fails to hit those by a significant margin!

I don't actually believe this. Do you have any referenceable proof of this?

I say this as the Toyota sites seems to claim 200hp SAE Net.....


Now American's can be fickle about power. Land Rover, Ford and Mazda (and probably others) have all been taken to court and lost on power claims. Which resulted in recalls and/or revised output claims.

Yet Toyota haven't... despite the car being aimed at the sort of people who'd kick up a stink if it really was true.

[anonymous-user]

Blayney said:

Olivera said:

Max_Torque said:

dash86 vs MX-5 RF:

2017 Mazda MX-5 Miata RF vs. 2017 Toyota 86 - Head 2 Head Ep. 89


Spoiler, the dash86's extra 40 horses completely fail to make an appearance...........

Make that 50 extra horses - the 2017 GT86 in the US is 205bhp, the Mazda 155bhp.

If anyone know where the extra 50 bhp went please let us all know.

It's amusing because, having watched the whole video, it further reinforces just how much you've both missed the point.

With Max's background I am sure he's being deliberately obtuse and knows there's a difference between peak horse power on paper and real world performance.

From the video - the time difference at "Streets of Willow" was negligible between both cars. Of course looking at lap times is still missing the point. Having looked at other lap times for the same course, Randy managed to put a Mazda 3 MPS with 260bhp around there only 0.5 seconds quicker than the '86. Some unknown person went around slower in a 997 911 Turbo...

What did Randy have to say? "Amazing that car is great" "It's just like an extension of the body, it's a dance" "it pulls better at high rpm, good strong brake pedal, it just has a sense of control". So he liked it. Most reviews I've read/seen by someone who can drive well have raved about the GT86.

I have a copy of last months EVO (May) that also compares these two cars. I'll reproduce the conclusion in full.

"The Toyota GT86 is the better sports car. It struggles to match the MX-5 for pace but, equally, it isn't a "slow" car, and there's great pleasure to be had engaging with the drivetrain. It also feels the better-made product, puts you in great touch with the action and has a greater depth of ability, from its feedback to its willingness to raise its game when you raise yours.

The Mazda is a grower. Stay within the limits of its chassis and it's a whole lot of fun to drive, the exaggerated body movements giving it a playful feel and the extra grip giving it higher cross-country pace. It also looks great inside and out, costs less to buy, averaged a remarkable 40mpg over the course of our test (10mpg more than the Toyota) and, with it's folding roof, will appeal to some buyers in a way the coupe-only GT86 cannot match).

Roof-down on a rare sunny day in north Wales, the Mazda is an invigorating car, with a punchier engine, rortier exhaust note and theatrical body movements, but I suspect many reading this will prefer the Toyota's precision, composure and greater focus.

But if Mazda one day decides to make a tin-top MX-5 with a stiffer structure and a firmer chassis, that would be most refreshing of all."


A few important bits from within the article.

On straight line performance:

"The RF is 39bhp down on the GT86, at 158bhp plays 187, and it has slightly less torque too, producing 147lb ft to the Toyota's 151lb ft. But three things count in the Mazda's favour. Firstly, its peak outputs are developed lower down the rev-range than those of the Toyota - considerably so in the case of torque, with the GT86 starting to produce maximum twist just 600rpm shy of its power peak.

Secondly, Mazda's tireless efforts to cut weight allow the RF to undercut the '86 by nearly 200kg, despite the extra hardware sitting on its rear deck. And finally, the MX5's 2-litre in-line four is simply more enthusiastic and punches through snappier gear ratios than th GT86's Subaru-sourced boxer engine"

Oh handling, feedback, control... driving;

"As you trust the front end, so you begin to bring the rear into play. The GT86 corners flat, far more so than the Mazda, so things begin to happen as soon as you've loaded up the chassis. And yes, sometimes there's a touch of understeer, but, once you've identified this through your fingertips, you need only relax your toes to balance the chassis. From that point, with the front and rear tyres sharing equal load, you can feed in more power and tighten your cornering line with the rear wheels. It'll do this around virtually any corner, and while that outright lack of grip means an average hot hatch would soon be several turns ahead, it's deeply satisfying to string together a sequence of bends, the Toyota seemingly on tip-toes, always a throttle movement away from a few more degrees of rotation."

"Unsurprisingly, it's the Toyota that delivers the biggest grins when you begin to play in the corners"



For what it's worth, I actually think both cars are great and are some of the few cars available on sale today that I would actually consider buying. The MX-5 will undoubtedly out-sell the GT86 - it has the heritage now, it's cheaper, you can put the roof down. However the GT86 will appeal to those who want more of a drivers car.

But the fact remains, that with somewhere between 40 and 50 bhp more than the Mazda, the dash86 fails to leverage any one of those extra horses (either because they aren't there, or because it's heavier, or the gearing means you can use them) which for a 'sports car', and a sports car that is considerably more expensive than the Mazda, is a rather glaring omission surely?

[daemon]

otolith said:

daemon said:

Theres a big difference between saying it looks quicker than it is and make it look slower.

Is there? That depends whether you think how it looks is a problem.

Is it a problem to sell a little rwd coupe with 200bhp and 0-60 in about 7.5?

Is it a problem to take said car and style it like the GT86? If it is, how should it be styled differently? If it isn't, what are you whinging about?

How it looks is not the problem. Its how it performs relative to its looks.

I'm not whinging, its making an observation - and its a common observation.

I dont want it to be styled differently. I want it to be quicker.

HTH

[300bhp/ton]

daemon said:

How it looks is not the problem. Its how it performs relative to its looks.

That doesn't really make any sense tbh....

And it really doesn't look that fast anyhow. It looks like exactly what it is. A mass market coupe with somewhat conservative styling.

daemon said:

I dont want it to be styled differently. I want it to be quicker.

HTH

1. Why? Are you racing someone, got a title to win?
2. How is it not fast enough?
3. Is it really that slow? I mean come on, why not draw up a list of comparable sports coupes/roadsters from say the last 18 years, ones pitched at a similar market and price point. How many of them really are that much quicker? Be it 0-60mph, 0-100mph, 1/4 mile or lap times.

And out of the ones that are, is it significant enough to know without the need of a stop watch?

[daemon]

venquessa said:

I think tying this full circle back to the original article we can safely say that daemon just doesn't get it. Loads of people do, loads of people don't.

I get it, in fact I'm trading my GT86 in for another one shortly.

Well whilst its clear you just want an argument on the internet, at least you've moved away from relating it to masturbation, so i guess thats a step forward

And, as already explained, but i'll repeat it once again for the slow of learning - its not a matter of "not getting it", its a matter of it not meeting all my pre-requisites for a low slung coupe. If you're happy with a low slung coupe that does 0-60 in 7.5s then fine. I'm not. I like them to be quicker - borne out by having had a z4 30Si coupe and a 370z GT, both of which deliver 0-60 times in the low 5s.

I've also said i'll get one on an extended test drive at some point.

My perspective of what i want from a car is going to be different from your perspective. That doesnt make you right or me right. Its two different views based on two different expectations and requirements.

[otolith]

daemon said:

How it looks is not the problem. Its how it performs relative to its looks.

I'm not whinging, its making an observation - and its a common observation.

I dont want it to be styled differently. I want it to be quicker.

HTH

But you wouldn't want it to be quicker if it had frumpier styling? Or is the styling irrelevant?

[daemon]

300bhp/ton said:

But that's the thing, it really isn't a 'niche' car. It should be a mass market, easily available and attainable coupe.

How Many Left says just under 6000, of which only 500 are Subaru's. However that is since Q4 2011.

Ok, so lets say 2012. That's still 5 1/2 years!!!

Which is only 1090 cars a year.

Considering Ford managed to sell a far more 'niche' car for the UK market, the Mustang and managed to sell 4500 in a year. The GT86 sales for the UK market are pretty dreadful.

Exactly. And thats why its such a shame Toyota UK have decided to price it how they have, when the likes of Toyota AUS and Toyota JPN have priced it pretty much in line with an MX5 (or a little dearer)

I dont get why people are so vehemently defending the high price? Surely its in everyones interest if the price was lower?

[daemon]

300bhp/ton said:

That doesn't really make any sense tbh....

And it really doesn't look that fast anyhow. It looks like exactly what it is. A mass market coupe with somewhat conservative styling.

its a low slung coupe with "look at me" looks. But it doesnt have the performance to back that up. IMHO anyway.

And thats a common criticism, so dont shoot the messenger.

300bhp/ton said:

1. Why? Are you racing someone, got a title to win?
2. How is it not fast enough?
3. Is it really that slow? I mean come on, why not draw up a list of comparable sports coupes/roadsters from say the last 18 years, ones pitched at a similar market and price point. How many of them really are that much quicker? Be it 0-60mph, 0-100mph, 1/4 mile or lap times.

And out of the ones that are, is it significant enough to know without the need of a stop watch?

1. We're on PH right, not mumsnet? Is anyone really saying that an extra 50BHP wouldnt be nicer? Why not a supercharged variant for example?
2. Because relative to even supermini based hot hatches like a Fiesta ST, it struggles with outright grunt. Also, a half decent 2.0TD rep mobile will give it a run for its money. I personally want a faster car if its a low slung coupe.
3. I've done so already - 140i M Sport can be bought for similar money, 370Z can be bought for similar money, MX5 offers similar "fun" for £,£££s less. Then you''re in to the realms of well if you're spending say £25K on one, would you walk past a used Cayman to buy one?

And yes, refer me back to Chris Harris's review if you like but even he says during that review "its not that fast, people who want performance are going to be disappointed", "this cabin - hmmm - its not a special place to sit. Trim materials are average" and "the real downside is the list price". Granted theres some lovely slo mo shots of if flicking about on a backroad, but realistically, whats it like for the other 95% of the time when we're not doing that?

[daemon]

otolith said:

daemon said:

How it looks is not the problem. Its how it performs relative to its looks.

I'm not whinging, its making an observation - and its a common observation.

I dont want it to be styled differently. I want it to be quicker.

HTH

But you wouldn't want it to be quicker if it had frumpier styling? Or is the styling irrelevant?

I'm not going to resort to a facepalm .jpg but thats really how i'm feeling now...

[300bhp/ton]

daemon said:

If you're happy with a low slung coupe that does 0-60 in 7.5s then fine. I'm not.

I assume you think the current entry level Elise is a bit of a waste of time too? It's only fractionally faster, but even more low slung and even more money.

And you must totally hate classic performance cars. Lotus Esprit, Excel. TVR 350... maybe even a Ferrari 308.

They are all a rather similar 'ballpark' figures for the 0-60mph times as the GT86 does.

And more recent, Mk3 MR2, MGTF 160, MK3 MX-5. Even an Integra DC5! All rather similar performance or slower than the GT86 and all usually accepted as more than fast enough for fun or even to be called performance cars here on PH.

daemon said:

I like them to be quicker - borne out by having had a z4 30Si coupe and a 370z GT, both of which deliver 0-60 times in the low 5s.

However aren't both of those more pricey? The BMW especially so.

And if it's speed that you want, then lets face it, even the 370 and Z4 and the earlier Boxsters are all a bit slow if you compared to certain vehicles that where available at the time.


For example...


A 986 Boxster, 2.7 litre of ~2002 vintage.

Seems it only makes circa 25hp more than a GT86, despite the .7 litre larger engine. And probably cost more than the GT86 does now, then it was new!!!

0-60mph is claimed at 6.0s
and 0-100mph in 14.2s

Ok it's faster than a GT86, but hardly comparable on a price or market point. And that it's not massively faster to 100mph. The 0-60mph is mostly because it's mid engine, not because it's actually quicker, it just launches better, so utterly pointless from a roll on the open road.


But my point being, in 2002 there were plenty of cars just as quick or faster for less money. Loads in the USA, but plenty on sale here too.

So does ultimate speed matter in such a car?

[RBH58]

Oh for heavens sake, it it matters to you to be able to do 0-100 in 6-point-something or less, or to be able to lap the Nurburgring in less than 9 minutes, then the 86/ BRZ or MX5 are not for you. The end. Please buy a 370Z or a Boxster/Cayman or a Lotus or a 4C. You will hate the 86/BRZ/MX5.

[daemon]

300bhp/ton said:

However aren't both of those more pricey? The BMW especially so.

Yes. I never said otherwise. I said my expectations of a low slung RWD coupe are that it has better performance.

I dont think the performance maps well to the price - borne out by the fact you can buy the GT86 in other markets for relative speaking £6,000+ less.

300bhp/ton said:

And if it's speed that you want, then lets face it, even the 370 and Z4 and the earlier Boxsters are all a bit slow if you compared to certain vehicles that where available at the time.

Yup. Probably, again i never said otherwise

300bhp/ton said:

So does ultimate speed matter in such a car?

Ultimately you weigh up everything including price, and make your decision.

I personally think - and a lot of people agree - the GT86 is overpriced relative to its performance.

As i said, thats my perspective. It doesnt make you wrong, nor does your perspective make me wrong.

[daemon]

RBH58 said:

Oh for heavens sake, it it matters to you to be able to do 0-100 in 6-point-something or less, or to be able to lap the Nurburgring in less than 9 minutes, then the 86/ BRZ or MX5 are not for you. The end. Please buy a 370Z or a Boxster/Cayman or a Lotus or a 4C. You will hate the 86/BRZ/MX5.

Gee, thanks for the validation

I havent bought a GT86 and i've explained why. There are many people who have the same view.

Oh and i've owned 4-5 MX5s so far. To me their price point tallies well with their performance.

[otolith]

daemon said:

otolith said:

daemon said:

How it looks is not the problem. Its how it performs relative to its looks.

I'm not whinging, its making an observation - and its a common observation.

I dont want it to be styled differently. I want it to be quicker.

HTH

But you wouldn't want it to be quicker if it had frumpier styling? Or is the styling irrelevant?

I'm not going to resort to a facepalm .jpg but thats really how i'm feeling now...

I feel much the same way, but it's the logical outcome of what you are saying. Either it's just not fast enough for you, full stop, in which case the styling is irrelevant, or whether it is fast enough for you depends on how it is styled, in which case making it look slower would satisfy you. You can see that the latter is a ridiculous position, yet you won't admit the former.

[otolith]

daemon said:

Yes. I never said otherwise. I said my expectations of a low slung RWD coupe are that it has better performance.

Why? The advantages of being low slung are largely to do with handling, nothing to do with straight line performance. You can make something like a Cayenne quick in a straight line.